SACHIN PARSHURAM MANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                      188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 5238 OF 2026

           Sachin Parshuram Mane                            .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Ms. Pooja Anil Khandekar, Advocate for Petitioner
            Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for State
            Ms. Aisha Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
            PSI - Balu Chopde, Bibewadi Police Station, Pune
            Respondent No. 2 - Complainant present
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : OCTOBER 8, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Ms. Khandekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.

           Nakhwa, learned APP for State and Ms. Shaikh, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Writ Petition is filed for seeking quashing of the criminal

           proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 104 of 2025 registered with

           Bibwewadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable                 under

           Section 109 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for

           short "BNS") and provisions of the Arms Act.


           3.       The incident in question took place on 04.05.2025 in view of an

           altercation between the parties, whereby Respondent No. 2 -

           Complainant's brother assaulted the Petitioner's aged maternal uncle

                                                                                       1 of 6
                                                    188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


over the manner of driving a two-wheeler through a narrow lane in

the Bibwewadi area of Pune. This precursor incident triggered the

incident in question which occurred late in the intervening night

between 4th May and 5th May 2025 whereby the Applicant assaulted

the Complainant with a Koyta which has been recovered.


4.    Both the Applicant and the Complainant are young offenders in

terms of their respective ages. They are known to each other rather

they are friends with each other. It is prima facie seen that families of

both the parties stepped in thereafter to reconcile the dispute. Offence

was lodged in view of injury suffered by the Complainant which when

seen from the medical report is simple in nature.


5.    Ms. Khandekar has persuaded me to consider the fact that

provocation of the precursor incident in view of the two-wheeler

having been driven in a very narrow space which could have led to an

accident was the reason and the altercation which happened thereafter

escalated into the incident in question in view of slapping of the elder

person which was the reason for the incident in question. She would

submit that the incident occurred in a fit of rage and was not

premeditated and happened at the spur of the moment and the

enragement was in view of an elderly person having been slapped.




                                                                     2 of 6
                                                    188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


6.    I have considered the submissions and the record which is

placed before me. The injury certificate records a lacerated wound on

the forearm for which the Complainant was treated and discharged on

the same day from the hospital.        Applicant - accused person is

incarcerated in prison for the past 17 months. His bail application is

pending before this Court itself but due to the constraints faced by this

Court, the same has not been listed which is informed to the Court.

Fortunately, the present Petition filed for consent quashing and it has

got listed on the appointed day as per auto listing the parties are

before the Court. The elder family members of both the sides are

present in Court. Complainant is also present in Court. I have

interacted with them with the able assistance of the learned Advocates

at the Bar.


7.    The reason rather the precursor incident in question is

something which public staying and living in congested cities face on a

day-to-day basis. Considering the stress which is involved in the life of

the public at large, when such an incident of road rage occurs, tempers

fly high resulting in verbal altercation leading to escalation of the

same into a scuffle and sometimes leading to incidents like the present

case before the Court.


8.    The material which is placed before me does not show that

there was any premeditation or conspiracy or reason to commit the

                                                                     3 of 6
                                                     188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


crime in question for which the offence is registered. It is seen that the

parties before me are coming from respectable families and have deep

roots in society. It is unfortunate that they got embroiled in the present

incident in question.


9.    Generally this Court is cautious with granting consent quashing

in the matters relating to Section 307 where weapons are used but

such is not the case before the Court.      It is seen that there is no

previous enmity between the parties and the parties are in fact known

to each other and live in the same locality. However because of the

precursor incident of slapping an elderly family member in a fit of

rage, the present incident occurred.


10.   Consent affidavit dated 08.10.2026 filed by the Complainant is

tendered before the Court. I have perused the same. The Complainant

states that he has on his own volition consented for quashing of the

present FIR and does not harbour any grudge or ill-will against the

Petitioner. The same is taken on record and placed on the record of

the Court.


11.   In view of my aforesaid observations and findings emanating

from the record, I am inclined to consider the request of the parties for

consent quashing.




                                                                      4 of 6
                                                    188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


12.       Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any

Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands

incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the

language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts

invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with

malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding

procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal

proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the

accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of

CRPC and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies

from case to case.


13.       In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the

said judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court

has furthered asserted that power under Section 482 is an

acknowledgment of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers

additional. It has held that even non compoundable offences can be

quashed where necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide


1     1992 AIR 604

                                                                     5 of 6
                                                                                    188. CRI WP-5238-26.odt


           whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the

           interest of justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder,

           rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement

           because they involve societal implication.


           14.      The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)

           which reads thus:-

                    "(a)                that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the
                                        order of cognizance dated 06.04.2026, the FIR bearing C.R. No. 104
                                        of 2025 registered with Bibwewadi Police Station, Pune, the
                                        chargesheet and all consequent proceedings in Sessions Case No.
                                        624 of 2025 pending before the learned District Judge - 9 and
                                        Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in their entirety, qua         the
                                        Petitioner."


           15.      As a consequence of allowing the present Petition and quashing

           the FIR / C.R. No. 104 of 2025 and Sessions Case No. 624 of 2025, the

           Petitioner is forthwith directed to be released from prison.


           16.      All parties are directed to act on a certified / server copy of this

           order downloaded from the website of the Bombay High Court.


           17.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.10.08
                     20:24:42 +0530




                                                                                                     6 of 6